If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The 1996 U.S. Supreme Court decision Whren v. United States widened police officer discretion in making traffic stops. Prior to Whren, officers needed to be able to articulate “probable cause” about suspicion of drug activity if they made a traffic stop. Whren permits officers to make a pretextual stop, perhaps based on a very minor traffic infraction, that puts them in a position to better discern whether drug activity is taking place or not. As even the most cautious motorist regularly commits violations of heavily regulated traffic codes, officers can “legally” make a traffic stop on virtually every driver of whom they are even remotely suspicious. In a racially-ordered society such as the U.S., officers who consciously or unconsciously make race-based decisions about whom to suspect of criminal activity are now legally protected by the Whren decision. After years of public outcry about racial profiling practices in minority communities, the Whren decision is discussed in the context of recent studies showing evidence of racial profiling on our nation’s roadways, and the interesting turn mainstream criminologists have taken with their latest research concerning “perceptions” of being racially profiled. Data from a preliminary qualitative study of officer views on racial profiling is discussed.

BTW, what are your thoughts on the stop discribed in the first post. Given the directive sent out to law enforcement, was the bumper sticker a basis for reasonable suspicion? Or was the stop pretextual in nature?

JD

One cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into. - Jonathan Swift

The 1996 U.S. Supreme Court decision Whren v. United States widened police officer discretion in making traffic stops. Prior to Whren, officers needed to be able to articulate “probable cause” about suspicion of drug activity if they made a traffic stop. Whren permits officers to make a pretextual stop, perhaps based on a very minor traffic infraction, that puts them in a position to better discern whether drug activity is taking place or not. As even the most cautious motorist regularly commits violations of heavily regulated traffic codes, officers can “legally” make a traffic stop on virtually every driver of whom they are even remotely suspicious. In a racially-ordered society such as the U.S., officers who consciously or unconsciously make race-based decisions about whom to suspect of criminal activity are now legally protected by the Whren decision. After years of public outcry about racial profiling practices in minority communities, the Whren decision is discussed in the context of recent studies showing evidence of racial profiling on our nation’s roadways, and the interesting turn mainstream criminologists have taken with their latest research concerning “perceptions” of being racially profiled. Data from a preliminary qualitative study of officer views on racial profiling is discussed.

BTW, what are your thoughts on the stop discribed in the first post. Given the directive sent out to law enforcement, was the bumper sticker a basis for reasonable suspicion? Or was the stop pretextual in nature?

JD

1) The difference is Freedom Of speech is a guaranteed right; the same is not true of illegal drug possession. Apples to pancakes as my buddy HEW likes to say

2) The “war on drugs” is a failure for many reasons and this is one of them. Using it as an excuse to perform unwarranted searches is one of the many byproducts of the current drug laws that is a prime example of the intent to do good gone wrong.

3) Addressing the above search for reasonable cause. I can’t speak for other places but down here we have long had a saying “you can beat the wrap, but you can’t beat the ride” in regard to the type of illegal searches preformed based on reasonable suspicion about drug activity. When you are pulled over, if you happen to look wrong or just tick the officer off he will ask if he can search your vehicle. You of course have the right to refuse, however, doing so will result in them brining in a dog which WILL “alert” on your car and you will then be searched. Everyone here should know dogs well enough to know that the “alert” is an easily conditioned response and does not have to be accurate. I have seen them walk a dog past a car and then back to the patrol car only to say the dog alerted on it. Knowing dogs pretty well I can tell you if the handler got an alert he was much more in tune with his dog than ANYONE I have ever met in my life. In this case the car was searched and NOTHING was found and we were let go with no ticket for anything. I have also been asked to allow a search of my truck for no other reason than legally carrying a gun with a concealed carry permit. Again nothing found, but I am sure if I had not been legally carrying I would have gotten a ticket and sent on my way (NOTE: I informed the female office that I was a permit holder and that I had a gun in my console legally because I needed to open it to get my wallet. I no longer carry my wallet there…)

Views and opinions expressed herein by Badbullgator do not necessarily represent the policies or position of RTF. RTF and all of it's subsidiaries can not be held liable for the off centered humor and politically incorrect comments of the author.
Corey Burke

First I find it amazing a bumper sticker expressing a citizen's desire to have the government respect his/her rights can somehow be equated with a criminal act that that endangers life/property like DWI.
Also that a conservative/Christian/Constitutionalist newsgroup is implied as being pot smoking liars when it is the alleged actions of a law enforcement officer, possibly motivated by a discredited/withdrawn "report"(MIAC), that should be under discussion.

As even the DHS assessment stated in Key Findings that"The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific
information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence"; so what was the probable cause/reasonable suspicion here?
Does a bumper sticker "indicate plans to carry out violent acts." Was the driver "targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors." simply bey driving down the street?
Or was the driver/passenger "focusing their efforts to recruit new
members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda" and hoping that the "Don't Tread On Me" would be like "Ask Me About AMSOIL"?

What would you on the political left be saying if the bumper sticker read "Support HSUS", or "Greenpeace" and the driver had been stopped for being a possible LWE ? Or if this had been reported on the "Huffington Post"?

"It's not that government is inherently stupid, although that's a debatable question."
Rand Paul CPAC speech 2011

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1791
________________________________________
Proud partner of (HR) WR SR Brian's 44Magnum Monster
co-owned by HR Rianne's 2nd Chance Hurricane Rebel

So BBG and BrianW, evidently we agree. Traffic stops without reasonable suspicion do take place routinely, and they are BS whether they be for a bumper sticker or on some other pretext, so that an investigation for any other possible crimes can be initiated.

I'll say it one more time. Pretextual traffic stops are wrong, and that includes the bumper sticker story.

Is that clear enough for you Corey and Brian.

Sheesh!

JD

One cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into. - Jonathan Swift

So BBG and BrianW, evidently we agree. Traffic stops without reasonable suspicion do take place routinely, and they are BS whether they be for a bumper sticker or on some other pretext, so that an investigation for any other possible crimes can be initiated.

I'll say it one more time. Pretextual traffic stops are wrong, and that includes the bumper sticker story.

Is that clear enough for you Corey and Brian.

Sheesh!

JD

I have a friend who is a cop, and a few years ago he told me that they racially profile people all the time. If you're a white guy in certain neighborhoods, during certain hours, and they see you; they'll probably pull you over. The reason according to him is the only reason they would be there is to buy drugs, and it's dangerous for them to be there.

So BBG and BrianW, evidently we agree. Traffic stops without reasonable suspicion do take place routinely, and they are BS whether they be for a bumper sticker or on some other pretext, so that an investigation for any other possible crimes can be initiated.

I'll say it one more time. Pretextual traffic stops are wrong, and that includes the bumper sticker story.

Is that clear enough for you Corey and Brian.

Sheesh!

JD

Not really. Pulling someone over for a broken taillight and then doing an illegal search is a whole lot different than pulling someone over for a bumper sticker. Sheesh, everybody knows it is against the law to run a stop sign, drive with an expired tag, fail to use a turn signal, not wear you seatbelt, however it is NOT against the law to have a bumper sticker on your car. My post stated illegal searches based on a traffic stop, not a traffic stop based on a bumper sticker.

Views and opinions expressed herein by Badbullgator do not necessarily represent the policies or position of RTF. RTF and all of it's subsidiaries can not be held liable for the off centered humor and politically incorrect comments of the author.
Corey Burke

BTW, what are your thoughts on the stop discribed in the first post. Given the directive sent out to law enforcement, was the bumper sticker a basis for reasonable suspicion? Or was the stop pretextual in nature?

I believe I was answering what you asked for.

The MIAC report was inflammatory & prejudicial and withdrawn by the issuing agency. But the damage had already been done with terms such as "political paraphernalia" and "militia propaganda". No basis there.
DHS assessment implicates guilt before any action has been committed based on association or expressed beliefs, no basis there either.

The alleged stop (imo - based on the information given) was nothing but harassment for an expressed thought under the pretext that the driver was a "subversive survivalist" (?!?) which is NOT a crime the last time I looked.
The story then stated that "he was warned" before his eventual release.
Warned of what, I wonder?
Not to expect any innocence until proven guilty?
No protections against unreasonable search & seizure?
That "the militia" crap won't be tolerated around here?

Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: "Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789.)

"It's not that government is inherently stupid, although that's a debatable question."
Rand Paul CPAC speech 2011

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1791
________________________________________
Proud partner of (HR) WR SR Brian's 44Magnum Monster
co-owned by HR Rianne's 2nd Chance Hurricane Rebel

I used to make lots of traffic stops based on something as simple as a bum tail light. If that was all there was to the stop the driver got a safety equipment repair order and was sent on their way. You would not believe the number of DWI s I got on such stops. You take what you get on such stops. I never stopped people based on a bumper sticker.

So BBG and BrianW, evidently we agree. Traffic stops without reasonable suspicion do take place routinely, and they are BS whether they be for a bumper sticker or on some other pretext, so that an investigation for any other possible crimes can be initiated.

I'll say it one more time. Pretextual traffic stops are wrong, and that includes the bumper sticker story.

Is that clear enough for you Corey and Brian.

Sheesh!

JD

Pretextual / prejudice / profiling... Aren't we really talking about the same thing here? In your 2nd post you state that police, "have the power to profile" because "we gave it to them". Do you stand by that statement? If so, why do you continue post and add links about the illegalities of such actions? I don't get you JD. Why don't you just admit that your 2nd post about profiling is not accurate. Keep going around and around about this if you wish but I'm hopping off this carousel. Believe whatever you want. The fact is that your 2nd post is untrue.